Monday, October 28, 2013

Socialism restricts the individual

For some reason, I
cannot seem to wrap my mind around this chapter, so this is my pre-apology for
any terribleness that arises in my post.

In my view,
socialism is a great idea for bettering the greater good. However, it often
operates at the expense of the individual. Accordingly, post-war British
socialism, just like many other socialist regimes, did not prosper all that
much. While I do commend the Fabian Society’s approach of gradualism, I still
retain my belief that any institution that imposes a fair amount of unnecessary
control over a market will ultimately cause that market to fail. For instance, the
Soviet Union. Now although post-war British socialism attempted to incorporate capitalism
into its agenda, it nonetheless hoped for the eventual goal of state ownership
of the means of production, which completely conflicts with capitalist ideals.
In the end, Fabian concepts resulted in market deterioration and not growth.
Here it is wise to note that when regulations were lifted from Germany’s markets,
prices lowered and prosperity was reintroduced back into the market. It is
therefore my conclusion that socialism does not work as well as free markets do
and that it, socialism, should not, seeing as how it denies an individual the
ability to willingly seek their comparative advantage. Yes, regulation is
beneficial in a plethora of sectors and, yes, that is in regards to both the
consumers and the producers. Unfortunately, when taken to an extent that can be
labeled socialism, control simply turns into overbearing and restrictive power.